Engagements
To ask the First Minister what engagements she has planned for the rest of the day. (S4F-02424)
Later this afternoon I will travel to the Isle of Man for tomorrow’s meeting of the British-Irish Council.
I wish the First Minister a safe journey.
I am sure that the whole chamber will welcome the all-party consensus on the Smith commission. I thank Lord Smith and all the party commissioners for their hard work in reaching agreement. They have delivered a powerhouse Parliament; a promise made before the referendum is now a promise delivered—and more. Does the First Minister agree that this is the most substantial transfer of powers to Scotland since a Labour Government delivered the Scottish Parliament itself in 1999?
On a note of consensus, I, too, pay tribute to Lord Smith, who is to be commended. I spoke to him this morning and thanked him, on behalf of the Scottish Government, for his role in this process.
I also welcome the new powers that are recommended. I want this Parliament to be as powerful as possible, so I welcome any new powers that come to it. The powers now have to be delivered. Some of what is recommended—devolution of air passenger duty, for example—was first recommended by the Calman commission, but the Westminster parties decided to shelve that. We need to ensure that the powers are delivered. If some of the sabre rattling that we are hearing on English votes for English laws is anything to go by, that might not be as smooth as we think.
Overall, the package is disappointing.
Members: Aw!
Labour should perhaps listen to what I am about to say. I heard Grahame Smith of the Scottish Trades Union Congress on Radio Clyde a little while ago. He said that the package is underwhelming and that it falls short of the vow.
Seventy per cent of our taxes will continue to be set at Westminster. Eighty-five per cent of social security spending will be controlled at Westminster. This Parliament will be responsible for less than half of the money that we will spend. It is not so much the home rule that was promised; in so many respects it is continued Westminster rule.
That consensus lasted less than a minute.
Any politician not electrified by the possibilities that these new powers present for us—
Members: Oh!
Order!
—to change the lives of the most vulnerable people in our country needs to ask themselves whether they are in the right job.
The Smith proposals will see huge devolution of power to this Parliament: control over £20 billion of taxation and £3 billion of welfare and the power to create new benefits. The Parliament will have substantial control over income tax, borrowing, air passenger duty, the Crown Estate, the work programme, work choices, a long list of benefits and much more.
It is time to talk about what we would do with those powers; on that I agree with the First Minister. One of the key economic powers that are coming to this Parliament is the power over income tax. Will the First Minister confirm whether she supports Labour’s proposal to raise the top rate of income tax to 50p?
On the last point, if I was taking that decision now, yes, I would raise the top rate of income tax to 50p. Scottish National Party MPs voted in the House of Commons against the reduction of the top rate of tax; Labour MPs did not turn up to vote. That is the reality.
The question that Labour should ask itself is how has it managed to find itself on the same side as the Tories and on the wrong side of the STUC. What has gone wrong with Labour?
I prefer to look at the views of those organisations that represent real people—so let us look at some of them. One Parent Families Scotland has said that it is “disappointed”; the STUC has said that it is “underwhelmed” and that there is
“not enough to empower the Scottish Parliament to tackle inequality”;
Engender Scotland is “disappointed”; and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, too, is “disappointed”. [Interruption.]
Order!
Finally, I say to Jackie Baillie that what would have electrified me and this Parliament would have been control of job-creating powers, control of the minimum wage, control of the income tax personal allowance, control of national insurance contributions, control of universal credit and tax credits and control of the kind of things that create jobs and help us tackle inequality. Those are the kind of powers that any self-respecting Labour Party would be arguing for instead of siding with the Tories. [Interruption.]
One moment, Ms Baillie. There is too much shouting across the chamber. Please allow Ms Baillie to speak and the First Minister to answer.
Before the ink has dried, the Scottish National Party is already unpicking the consensus. I listed in my previous question a range of work-creation powers that will help put Scotland back to work, but the First Minister clearly was not listening.
The Parliament will also be responsible for £3 billion of welfare—and, yes, I am excited about the possibility of creating new benefits that will help the most vulnerable in the country. We will also have power over disability living allowance, personal independence payments, attendance allowance, carers allowance, severe disability allowance, sure start grants, cold weather payments, winter fuel payments and many more besides. These are serious and substantial powers.
The First Minister has been in the job for a week, and she has been handed the biggest transfer of powers since the Parliament was established in 1999. Frankly, I would be excited by that, but today John Swinney, her Deputy First Minister, has criticised it and Stewart Hosie, her deputy leader, has done likewise. All she can talk about is what she has not got and what she cannot do. Surely she should be focusing on what she can do with these new powers to change the lives of people across Scotland.
The First Minister needs to understand the mood of the country—
Members: Oh! [Interruption.]
Order! Let us hear Ms Baillie.
The First Minister has the opportunity to transform lives. What particular powers in the Smith commission report will she use to transform the country?
I said at the outset of my first answer to Jackie Baillie that I welcome all new powers that come to this Parliament. Every power that is recommended for devolution to this Parliament in the Smith commission report I warmly welcome, and when we get our hands on those powers we will use them all to better serve the people of Scotland.
Jackie Baillie might find it easy to dismiss my view—that is fair enough; that is politics—but I caution her against dismissing the view of the STUC, the SCVO and organisations such as Engender Scotland. Those organisations speak for real people across this country, and they are saying that this package of powers falls short of what is needed to create jobs and more equality in our country.
If the proposals are implemented, we will get control over £2.5 billion of welfare spend. However, that is £2.5 billion out of £17.5 billion. I do not want to have the power just to top up Tory cuts to welfare or to put a sticking plaster on a broken system. I want to have the power in our hands to create a better system, to lift people out of poverty and to get our economy growing. That is the kind of powerhouse Parliament I want, but sadly that is not the one that will be delivered.
If that was a warm welcome from the First Minister, I would hate to get on her wrong side.
We cannot face two ways. Just two weeks ago, the First Minister told her conference that
“the promise of more powers will evaporate, the vow will be broken.”[Interruption.]
Order!
It might not be comfortable for SNP members to hear this, but the vow that was made to the people of Scotland has been delivered before St Andrew’s day, ahead of schedule.
I genuinely thank the Scottish National Party for its help in delivering the vow, because, working together, we have delivered the biggest transfer of powers to the Scottish Parliament since its inception. Promise made; promise delivered—£20 billion of taxation and £3 billion of welfare. Further, I encourage the First Minister to read the small print, because she now has the power to create her own benefits, and I look forward to hearing what they will be.
The First Minister promised that the referendum was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We have kept our promise to the people of Scotland. Will the First Minister now keep hers?
If Jackie Baillie says often enough that this is the biggest transfer of power ever, she might manage to convince herself but, unfortunately, she will not convince anybody else.
I quote, again, Grahame Smith of the STUC, who said that the proposals fall short of the vow. I thought that Labour was on the side of the trade unions. It turns out that Labour is just on the side of the Tories.
It is not me who Labour has to worry about being on the wrong side of. Increasingly, Labour has to worry about being on the wrong side of the people of Scotland. When it comes to the general election in May, I think that it will find out just how much on the wrong side of the people of Scotland it has become.
Prime Minister (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister when she will next meet the Prime Minister. (S4F-02421)
No plans in the near future.
Well, Nicola Sturgeon’s consensus politics seems to go only so far because, this morning, she was tweeting lines that she did not like from the Smith report before the commissioners had even sat down. Personally, I think that this is a great day for Scotland. This pocket-money Parliament is finally going to have to look taxpayers in the eye.
The First Minister needs to check the figures that she gave today. This morning, I asked the Scottish Parliament information centre to do just that, and it confirmed that nearly 60 per cent of all money that is spent by the Scottish Government will now have to be raised by the Scottish Government.
We all know that anything short of independence would not satisfy the First Minister, but she should remember that independence was the one option that the people of Scotland roundly rejected. This is a big, bold package of measures, so why can the First Minister not give it the warmer welcome that it clearly deserves?
I am happy to trade figures with Ruth Davidson but, even taking account of the assignation of VAT revenues—which I welcome, although I would rather be in control of tax than have tax revenues assigned—we will be responsible for raising less than half the money that we spend: 48 per cent.
However, even if Ruth Davidson is correct, is that the limit of her ambition—that we should control 60 per cent of the spending of this Government? For goodness’ sake, how on earth can anyone describe that as a responsible, powerhouse Scottish Parliament?
I have already welcomed the powers that are being transferred. Nobody on this side of the chamber will ever do anything other than welcome powers coming to this Parliament, because the difference between us and some other parties in this chamber is that we want to have maximum powers so that we can do the maximum amount of good for the people of Scotland.
Let me read to Ruth Davidson from paragraphs 80 to 85 of the Smith commission report:
“All aspects of National Insurance Contributions will remain reserved ... All aspects of Inheritance Tax and Capital Gains Tax will remain reserved ... All aspects of Corporation Tax will remain reserved ... All aspects of the taxation of oil and gas receipts will remain reserved ... All other aspects of VAT will remain reserved.”
There are sections of the report that talk more about what is being kept in the hands of Westminster than about what is coming to this Parliament.
At the end of the day, we can argue in this Parliament about what we think is good and what we think is bad about the report, but the ultimate verdict will be for the Scottish people. I think that, in the general election in May, the Scottish people have an opportunity to say to the Westminster parties, quite clearly, “Thanks very much for your opening offer; now we want to up it.”
Drowning not waving, I think—the First Minister is purposefully missing the scope of what is proposed today. Let me put her grievance in a bit of context for her. Professors David Bell and David Eiser at the University of Stirling have looked at how much devolution exists in countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. They have even plotted it on a handy graph. Today’s announcement means that Scotland will have more devolved tax and spending than exists in nearly every other country in the developed world. Arguably, Scotland is behind only Canada, and we are now set to overtake Belgium, Norway, Italy, Finland, Iceland, France, Sweden and even the fully federal countries of America and Germany. Holyrood will become one of the most powerful devolved Parliaments on the planet.
With that in mind, and in the spirit of the new consensus, will the First Minister agree that these new powers can deliver for everyone in Scotland, no matter which way they voted in the referendum?
In the spirit of consensus that has been offered, I repeat that we will use all the new powers that come to the Parliament in the best way possible to improve the lives of the people of Scotland. That is what we do with the existing powers that we have and it is what we will do with any additional powers that we get.
I guess that Ruth Davidson and I will just have to have an honest disagreement. She may believe—she is entitled to believe this—that a situation that leaves 70 per cent of our tax being set at Westminster and 85 per cent of our social security spending being controlled at Westminster represents what was described in the referendum campaign as genuine home rule, but I am afraid that I take a different view, and I think that the people of Scotland will take a different view of it as well.
I appreciate that the quotations from respected organisations—the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Scottish Trades Union Congress—that I gave in response to Jackie Baillie might not cut much ice with the Tories, so I will quote an organisation that might cut more. The Institute of Economic Affairs has stated:
“The Smith proposals are a dangerous half-way house, failing to bring about the benefits that much fuller devolution would have brought to Scotland.”
I say again—I cannot say this any clearer—that I welcome what is being recommended. I hope that, unlike the situation with Calman, the Westminster parties will now deliver all those proposals. However, I think that the verdict of the Scottish people will be that it is not enough—that it does not live up to the vow and it does not deliver the modern form of home rule, the near-federalism solution—and I think that, in the general election, they will choose to make that verdict very clear.
Cabinet (Meetings)
To ask the First Minister what issues will be discussed at the next meeting of the Cabinet. (S4F-02419)
A range of issues to carry forward the Government’s programme for Scotland will be discussed
So much for the new beginning from the new First Minister. For the first time ever, all Scotland’s political parties have reached a powerful constitutional agreement. Three hours later, she is sitting there rubbishing the agreement that she has just signed. The agreement means that we will have a new £3 billion Scottish welfare system and the Scottish Parliament will get the financial muscle that it needs with taxes worth £20 billion. Cannot the First Minister be a little bit more positive?
Let me say again, for the benefit of Willie Rennie, what I said to both Jackie Baillie and Ruth Davidson. I welcome all the powers that have been recommended for devolution to the Scottish Parliament. I think that that devolution represents a degree of progress.
However, I am not going to stand here and pretend. My idea of consensus—I say this seriously to Willie Rennie—is not my somehow refusing to stand up for what I think is right on behalf of the Scottish people. I do not think that the proposals go far enough because—in this I am in agreement with the Scottish Trades Union Congress—I do not think that the powers that have been recommended will give me and my Government the ability that we need in order to get our economy growing faster and to tackle the inequality that is a scar on the face of our nation.
Yes—we will take the new powers and use them in the best way we can, but we will keep arguing for the real powers that the Parliament needs in order to do the best possible job for the people of Scotland.
The First Minister cannot keep on rerunning the referendum. She must accept that the report recommends more powers on income tax and VAT; powers on a new welfare system, with disability living allowance, attendance allowance and carers allowance and the power to create new benefits; powers on the work programme; powers on housing benefits; control over tribunals, railways and pay-day lenders; and powers on votes at 16. The list goes on. Will the First Minister give unqualified support for what will be a massive transfer of power, or is she always going to say that that will never be enough?
First, if the Westminster parties carry on as they are, it will not be me who forces the rerunning of the referendum, but them.
On a genuine attempt to find some consensus—I hope that Willie Rennie will agree with me on this—I welcome the fact that disability living allowance and personal independence payments are recommended for devolution to this Parliament. Will he join me in asking for those powers to be transferred before the Tory-Liberal coalition imposes a 20 per cent cut on the budget? Yes or no?
The luxury of having three supplementary questions—[Interruption.]
Members: Answer the question!
Order!
The First Minister seeks consensus across the chamber. She needs to recognise that this is a big package. Of course we will work together across the chamber, but she needs to start off by recognising what we have achieved today. So far, she has absolutely not done that.
I will take that as a no.
There is a serious point to be made here. I warmly welcome the transfer of disability benefits. However, as matters stand, by the time we get those powers the budget for them will have been cut by 20 per cent. If we want genuine consensus across the Parliament—where we can find it—I say genuinely to all parties let us, as a Parliament, ask the Westminster Government to transfer the powers as soon as possible and to do it before the cut is imposed, so that we can decide the right level of budget to protect our disabled people.
Mental Health Services (Royal College of Nursing Report)
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Royal College of Nursing report on mental health services. (S4F-02423)
I very much welcome the report, which highlights the importance of mental health services and acknowledges that care in treatment has improved over the past 15 years.
Of course, we can always do more. Earlier this month, we announced an additional £15 million investment over the next three years to improve mental health services. The new funding will be targeted on two main areas: a mental health innovation fund, and boosting staff numbers to address the mental health needs of children and adolescents, and to meet the rising demand for child and adolescent mental health services.
I welcome the innovation fund and the additional funding that has been allocated by the Scottish Government. The RCN has stated that pursuing nurse-led services and using advanced nursing practitioners to deliver services that were previously led by doctors could assist in delivering even stronger outcomes for mental health patients.
I am aware of nurse-practitioner-led services in my constituency in the Middlefield healthy hoose, which, although it does not deal directly with mental health services, operates across services that have more traditionally been delivered by general practitioners. Does the First Minister agree that health boards, in using the funding to invest in the appropriate recruitment and training, should examine whether nurse-led services and mental health services could be provided in communities?
I agree that that should be examined. I am a big supporter, from my time as health secretary, of the work of advanced nurse practitioners across a range of specialties in our national health service.
We have seen a substantial increase in the number of mental health nursing staff under this Government, but we should always be looking for ways to improve services further. Mark McDonald has made a very constructive suggestion. I am sure that the health secretary will be happy to discuss that further with him.
What is the First Minister’s view of the fact that there is only one available child psychiatric bed in the north and north-east of Scotland, which has created a situation in which young people are being admitted to adult psychiatric wards? Have any young people with mental health problems ever been admitted into a young offenders institution for treatment? Will she agree to undertake a review of the provision of child psychiatric beds?
I am happy to ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport to write in more detail to Nanette Milne or to meet her on the serious issue that she has raised. There are occasions on which young people under 18 are admitted to adult wards. Most of them are aged 16 and 17. An adult facility might, in certain circumstances, be judged to be clinically appropriate. Obviously, it is not something that we want to happen.
We have been seeing increases in capacity for young people under 18. For example, work on a new 12-bed in-patient unit to replace the current six-bed unit in Dundee has already commenced on site and it is expected that the new unit will be commissioned in late 2015. That will increase the national bed base from 42 to 48 beds.
The issue is serious and the Government is doing serious work to address it, but I recognise that we need to do more. As I said at the outset of my answer, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Wellbeing and Sport will be happy to discuss the matter further with Nanette Milne.
Child Literacy
To ask the First Minister how the Scottish Government will respond to Save the Children’s “Read On. Get On.” report on child literacy. (S4F-02428)
The Government welcomes the timely launch of the “Read On. Get on.” campaign. The campaign complements the work that we are already doing through our literacy action plan, curriculum for excellence and the getting it right for every child approach, plus specific programmes such as play, talk, read and bookbug.
We will now give all that existing good work an even sharper focus by introducing a read, write, count literacy and numeracy campaign aimed at primary 1 to 3 children. There will be a particular focus on improving outcomes for our most deprived communities.
The report maps the literacy levels of 11-year-olds. Every day of their school lives has been spent under the Scottish National Party Government and the report tells us that 20 per cent of kids from the poorest backgrounds still cannot read well enough. It tells us that progress has been too slow. The call is for the Scottish Government to ensure that every child leaves school able to read. After seven years in power, is it really too much to ask?
I know Kezia Dugdale, and I genuinely believe that she has an understanding of the complex issues that lie behind the important matter that she raises. I hope that we can find some consensus on it.
I also know that Kezia Dugdale will have listened carefully to my statement yesterday announcing the Government’s programme for the next year, in which I specifically mentioned the need to raise attainment in our most disadvantaged areas and in which I focused on literacy and numeracy. In my first answer, I referred again to the new campaign that we are about to launch.
Let us not get into a political point-scoring exercise if we can avoid it. [Interruption.] Well, the Labour Party wants consensus until it does not suit it to have consensus. [Interruption.]
Order.
On an issue as important as the educational attainment of our young people, we should strive to work together. Therefore, I will happily reach out to Kezia Dugdale, whatever capacity she might find herself in over the coming weeks, and see whether we can find ways to work together on that important issue.
Food Banks
To ask the First Minister what the Scottish Government’s response is to the Trussell Trust report indicating that the number of people in Scotland visiting food banks has doubled. (S4F-02425)
The numbers in food poverty in Scotland are completely unacceptable and an indictment of the United Kingdom Government’s programme of welfare cuts. To be frank, it is shocking that more than 51,000 people visited Trussell Trust food banks between April and September this year and even more shocking that more than 15,000 of them were children.
The Trussell Trust points out that welfare problems account for the highest proportion of those numbers. We are funding 26 projects with more than £500,000 through our emergency food fund. We will continue to do all that we can to tackle the problem, but it underlines the need for the Scottish Parliament to have not only limited powers over welfare but all powers over it.
I am sure that the First Minister will agree that the report should be a wake-up call for all society, bearing in mind the fact that Scotland and the UK are wealthy countries.
Does the First Minister consider that the failings and, more specifically, delays of welfare reform could have been prevented? That would have ensured that many of our citizens need not have been forced to go to food banks.
Does the First Minister also welcome the support that many of the 42 Scottish Professional Football League football clubs, to which I have written, are giving to their local food banks? That support also aims to remove the stigma among some supporters and the feeling that food banks are not for them, even in times of need.
It is appalling that, in a country as wealthy as Scotland, anybody has to rely on a food bank. Some football clubs are already providing valuable assistance in their local communities and helping the organisations that seek to help others.
I am aware of Stuart McMillan’s campaign to encourage SPFL clubs to support their local food banks through collections and awareness raising, and I agree whole-heartedly that football can play a much wider role in our society. Our football clubs are a vital part of our communities, and it is very welcome that so many of them are playing their part in supporting those people who are forced to use food banks by the UK Government’s devastating welfare cuts.
Previous
General Question Time